|
|
|
Policy and Procedures on Post-Tenure Review
Board of Visitors Policy
The faculty and administrators of Old Dominion University are dedicated
to the pursuit of excellence in teaching, research, and service. It is
the role of the department chair and the dean to conduct annual evaluations
of tenured faculty members, to identify the area or areas in which a particular
tenured faculty member has not met expectations, to explain the rationale
for that assessment, and to facilitate faculty development as needed to
improve faculty performance. To this end, the post-tenure review process
is intended to be developmental rather than punitive. A tenured faculty who receives an annual review from the chair and dean
stating that he or she has a serious deficiency in teaching, research,
and/or service should be aware that a second annual evaluation from the
chair and dean which states that he or she has not met expectations in
terms of overall performance in the three areas of responsibility could
activate the post-tenure review process. It is the responsibility of the
department chair to meet within 30 days with the faculty member who has
received such an evaluation to present in writing and clarify through discussion
the deficiencies identified in the evaluation. The chair and dean should
also outline in writing the steps to be taken, the required outcomes, and
the points in time at which progress will be assessed in order for the
faculty member to correct identified deficiencies and thus meet expectations
in subsequent annual reviews. The chair and dean will also notify the faculty
member in question that his or her subsequent annual evaluation will be
issued no later than January 15 of the following year. If the post-tenure review policy is activated, the faculty member must
be notified in writing by the chair and dean. Post-tenure review cannot
be activated unless the pattern of deficiency has been noted in two annual
reviews. (See paragraph II.K. of the Policy and Procedures on Evaluation
of Faculty.)
Confidentiality
The confidentiality of the post-tenure review process must be maintained.
When the decision is made to place a faculty member under post-tenure review,
discussion of the post-tenure review candidate and the process should be
limited to the chair, the dean, the provost and vice president for academic
affairs, the president, and the tenured faculty member placed under post-tenure
review. With the approval of the faculty member undergoing post-tenure
review, other individuals may be involved in various aspects of the strategic
development plan for the purpose of mentoring the faculty member under
review. Care should be taken, however, to involve in the plan only those
individuals who agree to respect the essential confidentiality of the post-tenure
review process.
Procedures
The chair must recommend initiation of the post-tenure review process
no later than January 15, and the dean's recommendation must be made
no later than February 8. The decision of the provost and vice president
for academic affairs on whether to support the post-tenure review process
for the faculty member must be made no later than March 1. When the post-tenure review process has been activated, the chair and
the dean will conduct an in-depth evaluation. In addition to examination
of the teaching, research, and service record of the faculty member from
previous evaluations, the chair and dean should evaluate the overall contribution
of the faculty member to the university. Consideration and assessment of
a faculty member's performance in post-tenure review must include
all aspects of the faculty member's performance and cannot be limited
to teaching. With respect to teaching, the total evaluation of teaching
must include evaluation by student questionnaires and at least one other
method. If requested by the faculty member, the chair, or the dean, one
or more external evaluators may be brought into the process. In addition to a thorough assessment of faculty performance, a major outcome
of this process is a strategic development plan indicating the faculty
member's expected long-range contributions to the university in specific
terms. Where deficiencies or areas for possible improvement are noted,
the strategic development plan should address ways of dealing with these
problems, measures of expected outcomes, and a timetable for accomplishing
these outcomes. The strategic development plan will be written by the faculty
member under review in consultation with the chair and/or dean. The strategic
development plan, including measures of expected outcomes, if appropriate,
will be detailed in a signed agreement among the faculty member, the chair,
and the dean by March 1. The full text of this agreement is submitted to
the provost and vice president for academic affairs. The provost and vice
president for academic affairs may approve, modify or reject the strategic
development plan. The implementation of the strategic development plan
is expected to take place by March 10. If the dean and the chair are unable to solicit the cooperation of the
faculty member in the development of the strategic plan, the dean and the
chair will prepare a plan to which the faculty member will be expected
to agree by March 1. In the event that the individuals involved (dean,
chair, faculty member) are unable to reach an agreement on a strategic
development plan by March 1, the dean will report to the provost and vice
president for academic affairs that an agreement has not been found. In
such an instance, if the dean and provost and vice president for academic
affairs concur, a major sanction may be issued to the faculty member at
this time. If the faculty member refuses to agree to or sign the strategic
development plan and elects instead to grieve the post-tenure process,
the faculty member must file a formal grievance by March 10 and follow
the approved time line for grieving the post-tenure review process. Annual evaluations in succeeding years will specifically address progress
toward meeting the goals outlined in the agreement on the strategic development
plan. A faculty member who fails to achieve the outcomes identified in
the in-depth evaluation within the agreed-upon timetable may be subject
to disciplinary actions up to and including a major sanction as described
in the section of this Handbook entitled "Faculty Sanctions." - Appeals and Grievance
- Appeal of Post-Tenure Review: A faculty member who disagrees with the
administrative decision to initiate a post-tenure review and develop
a strategic plan with a timetable may file a grievance (see the section
of this Handbook on "Faculty Grievance Policy," III.A.6).
To appeal the initial decision of the chair recommending post-tenure
review, the faculty member must provide supporting documentation
to rebut the evaluation to the dean by February 1. The dean reviews all available information, makes a decision and
notifies the provost and vice president for academic affairs and
the faculty member by February 8. If the faculty member objects to the dean's decision, he
or she may appeal to the provost and vice president for academic
affairs. This appeal must be made by February 15. The provost and vice president for academic affairs must act on
the faculty member's appeal and approve or reject the strategic
development plan by March 1.
Grievance of Post-Tenure Review: If a faculty member is placed on post-tenure
review, then he or she must combine and respond to in one grievance all
issues related to the dispute over post-tenure review: the annual evaluation,
the decision to place the faculty member on post-tenure review, the requirements
of the strategic plan, and the imposition of a major sanction, if issued.
Regardless of the provisions of the "Faculty Grievance Policy," III.A.6.
and A. 7., the faculty member must file this grievance by March 10.
Annual Report on Post-Tenure Review
The provost and vice president for academic affairs will present an annual
report to the deans and the Faculty Senate on the number of new and continuing
post-tenure review cases and on their general outcome.
|
|
